Grab a Tome of Town Portal, as many potions as you can carry, and prepare to explore the mysteries of the Nexus with our newest Support, Deckard Cain! Alongside his arrival in our next patch, we’re adding new bundles, skins, mounts, and more! Read on to check out everything that’s headed your way with our patch during the week of April 24.

Deckard Cain, The Last Horadrim, dedicated his time in Sanctuary to the pursuit of knowledge, hunting for ancient artifacts, and helping to protect the realm from the demonic. Now, he finds himself in the Nexus, where untold new wonders are waiting to be uncovered. As a Support, Deckard harnesses his vast experience to assist and guide his allies through every perilous encounter. Level up your lore mastery by adding Deckard to your collection with next week’s patch. You can also pick up his Wastewalker skins and the Road Chariot Mount with the Deckard Heroic Bundle, which is available until May 7. Be sure to stop by Deckard's Hero Page to learn more about his abilities and playstyle.

Deckard Heroic Bundle

Hero

Skins

Mounts

Deckard

Wastewalker Deckard

Road Chariot

Diesel Wastewalker Deckard

Exalted Road Chariot

Scourged Wastewalker Deckard

Hoarfrost Road Chariot

Wastewalker Deckard Skins (Rare)

Additional Deckard Skins (Rare)

Deckard Portrait and Emojis

New Skins and Mounts

Road Chariot Mount (Legendary)

Nephalem Skins (Rare)

Additional Skins (Rare)

New Bundle

With the Worldstone’s destruction, a new generation of Nephalem arose. They were descended from both angels and demons, yet stronger than both. Harness the Nephalems' incredible power with a bundle of new skins for some of your favorite Heroes from the Diablo game universe. Act quickly, adventurer, because this bundle will only be available until May 7!

Nephalem Bundle

Heroes

Skins

Johanna

Nephalem Johanna

Kharazim

Nephalem Kharazim

Li-Ming

Nephalem Li-Ming

Nazeebo

Nephalem Nazeebo

Sonya

Nephalem Sonya

Valla

Nephalem Valla

New Portraits and Sprays

We've teamed up with our friends at Carbot Animations again to bring you more of their signature HeroStorm-themed portraits and sprays! Take a look at everything coming your way below, and be sure to check out episodes of HeroStorm on the Carbot Animations YouTube channel for a few laughs.

Carbot Portraits

Carbot Sprays

We hope your games with Deckard go down in the history books as some of your favorites! Until next time, we’ll see you in the Nexus!

Heroes of the Storm PTR Patch Notes – April 16, 2018
A new build just went up on the PTR server! If you missed Deckard's reveal last week, you can check out our hero page for full information on his abilities and talents.

Originally Posted by Blizzard Entertainment

Our next Heroes of the Storm patch has just hit the Public Test Realm and will be available for playtesting until April 23. As always, if you encounter any bugs during your PTR play sessions, please stop by the PTR Bug Report forum to let us know about your experiences.

An avid scholar, Deckard Cain has dedicated his life to the pursuit of knowledge. He has been an advisor, storyteller, and friend to Sanctuary’s greatest heroes, guiding them through peril time and again. When Deckard speaks, it’s wise to stay awhile and listen.

Trait

Fortitude of the Faithful

When at least 1 other allied Hero is nearby, Deckard gains 10 Armor and his Basic Abilities recharge 50% faster.

Basic Abilities

Healing Potion (Q)

Toss a Healing Potion on the ground that heals the first allied Hero that comes in contact with it for 230.

Limit 5 active Potions.

Horadric Cube (W)

Throw the Horadric Cube, dealing 80 damage to all enemies in the area and Slowing them by 40% for 1.75 seconds.

Scroll of Sealing (E)

Unfurl an enchanted scroll, forming a triangle that deals 150 damage to enemies inside and Roots them for 1.5 seconds.

Heroic Abilities

Stay Awhile and Listen (R)

After 1 second, Channel for 3 seconds, putting enemy Heroes in front of Deckard to Sleep while Channeling, and for 2 seconds after.

Enemies can only be put to Sleep once per cast, and Sleep’s effects end instantly if they take damage.

Lorenado (R)

Vector Targeting.

Create a swirling lorenado that travels in the targeted direction, continually knocking away any enemies that come into contact with it.

ArtHeroes, Abilities, and Talents

Gul’dan: Has received updated visual effects to make his Abilities easier to spot during battle.

User IntefaceDraft Mode

Hero portraits in Draft Lobbies will now use 2D Base Hero art rather than animated 3D Hero Skin models in order to help make Hero picks easier to differentiate from one another at a glance.

For example: It should now be easier to tell whether a teammate has selected Falstad or Muradin during a draft.

DesignQuests

Skillshots, as well as other Abilities and Talents that search for targets, will now pass through Invulnerable targets without granting quest progress.

Heroes

Assassin

Cassia

Talents

Level 7

Surge of Light (Active)

Now has a 0.25 second cooldown between uses.

Fenix

Talents

Level 1

Mobile Offensive (Passive)

Now grants its Basic Attack damage bonus after any movement, rather than only after unmounted movement.

Genji

PTR Note: Shortly before releasing today’s patch we discovered a bug affecting Genji’s Shuriken (Q). This will likely result in difficult gameplay experiences for those attempting to test Genji’s changes in the PTR. We are working to resolve the issue before this patch is released to the live version of Heroes of the Storm next week. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.

Stats

Health increased from 1550 to 1620.

Health Regen increased from 3.2304 to 3.3750.

Basic Attack damage increased from 42 to 44.

Abilities

Cyber Agility (Trait) (D)

Cooldown increased from 10 to 12 seconds.

Swift Strike (E)

Range reduced from 14 to 12.

Dragonblade (R)

Damage increased from 220 to 240.

Removed functionality:

Killing an enemy Hero who was recently hit by Dragonblade no longer resets Swift Strike’s cooldown.

Talents

Level 1

Agile Dismount (Trait)

Cooldown reduction increased from 5 to 7 seconds.

Level 13

Double Jump (Trait)

No longer increases Cyber Agility’s cooldown.

Level 20

The Dragon Becomes Me (R)

Additional Functionality:

Now also resets Swift Strike’s cooldown if an enemy Hero dies within 2 seconds after being hit by Dragonblade.

Developer Comment: We’re making some changes to Genji to try and make him less frustrating to play against and give opponents more options to counter him. While we think resetting Swift Strike’s cooldown after killing enemy Heroes with Dragonblade made for cool, flashy plays, it shut down too many other Heroes too often. It also caused too many games to become about how much value Genji was able to get out of Dragonblade. We like the flashiness that Dragonblade resets can provide, so we’re keeping that functionality, but we’re now adding it to his Level 20 Storm Talent version of the Heroic. We’re also increasing his Health and Basic Attack damage, reducing the range of Swift Strike, and increasing the cooldown of Cyber Agility to reduce his mobility while boosting his base stats to compensate.

Specialist

Sylvanas

Abilities

Shadow Dagger (W)

Shadow Dagger now briefly reveals enemies upon spreading to them.

Zagara

Abilities

Nydus Network (R)

The player can now exit Nydus Worms in a direction of their choosing by right-clicking.

Warrior

Blaze

Abilities

Bunker Drop (R)

Players can now exit Blaze's Bunker in the direction of their choosing by right-clicking.

The Bunker’s hitbox has been adjusted to more closely match its model. This should reduce situations in which players could unintentionally enter Blaze’s bunker when clicking nearby.

Collection

New Bundles

The following new bundles are available for a limited time! Be sure to check out the latest In-Development blog for more details.

Deckard Heroic Bundle

Nephalem Bundle

New Announcers

Deckard

Raven Lord

Grave Keeper

New Skins

Deckard

Afflicted Deckard

Angelic Deckard

Wastewalker Deckard

Diesel Wastewalker Deckard

Scourged Wastewalker Deckard

Cassia

Soaring Cassia

Johanna

Nephalem Johanna

Kharazim

Nephalem Kharazim

Northern Kharazim

Li-Ming

Nephalem Li-Ming

Malthael

Sinuous Grave Warden Malthael

Nazeebo

Nephalem Nazeebo

Ceremonial Nazeebo

Rain Nazeebo

Sunrise Nazeebo

Sonya

Nephalem Sonya

The Butcher

Petrified Butcher

Valla

Nephalem Valla

New Mounts

Road Chariot

Exalted Road Chariot

Hoarfrost Road Chariot

Mount Removal

Lucky Piggy Bank

The Lucky Piggy Bank Mount, which can only be purchased using gold, will be removed from the Collection when this patch is released to the live version of Heroes next week.

New Portraits and Sprays

We've once again teamed up with Carbot Animations to add even more HeroStorm-themed portraits and sprays in their signature art style! Catch a preview in the latest In-Development blog.

Bug Fixes

General

Fixed a number of typo and tooltip errors across several aspects of the game.

A.I.

Hanzo: Fixed an issue that could cause A.I. Hanzo to repeatedly Channel and cancel Storm Bow.

Art

Blaze: Icon art has been swapped for the Adhesive Petroleum and Oil Dispersal Talents.

Lunar Sylvanas: Fixed an issue causing Lunar Sylvanas to play an incorrect animation on the Most Played screen.

Ana: Nano Boost’s duration bar now appears next to, rather than replaces, any existing Ability duration bars for the targeted Ally, like Sonya’s Whirlwind.

Brightwing: Can now correctly cast Blink Heal on Turrets and Biotic Emitters that were placed by Brightwing herself.

Cho: Entering a Stasis effect, like Zeratul’s Void Prison, while Surging Fist is charging no longer places Surging Fist on full cooldown.

Fog of War: Hitting an enemy with certain targeted, ranged Abilities, like Sylvanas’ Shadow Dagger, just before the target enters Fog of War or a Line of Sight Blocker now correctly reveal that enemy.

Fog of War: Fixed an issue in which attempting to cast a targeted Ability through the Fog of War on a snapshot of a unit that no longer exists could cause the Hero to path into the terrain and become stuck.

The Mid-Season Brawl Returns to DreamHack Summer
The HGC Mid-Season Brawl is returning to DreamHack Summer in Sweden! This is one of the few events of the year where all the regions get to play against one another and try to settle once and for all who is truly better than the others. This event is one that should not be missed.

Originally Posted by Blizzard
(Blue Tracker)

Fnatic triumphed over Team Dignitas on their home turf at last year’s Mid-Season Brawl (MSB). The final series stretched late into the night with the audience balancing on the edge of their seats. We’re excited to announce that MSB will return to Sweden at DreamHack Summer again this year, with another $250,000 reserved for only the fiercest of competitors. In the running for the cup will be the top two teams from HGC North America, the top two teams from HGC China, the top three teams from HGC Europe, the top three teams from Korea, and the winners of both the Intercontinental Clash (between Latin America and Australia/New Zealand) and Horizon Clash (between Taiwan and Southeast Asia). The additional spots were awarded to Europe and Korea for their respective wins at the Western Clash and Eastern Clash in the spring.

Location: Stockholm for group stages, Jönköping (DreamHack Summer) for playoffs

Dates: June 9-13 for group stages, June 16-18 for playoffs

Prize pool: $250,000 USD

Format: Two groups of six teams will play round-robin matches (two-game sets) within each group, earning points to qualify for a double elimination bracket

Developer AMA Follow-up
Following Friday's AMA on reddit, Travis McGeathy (Lead Game Designer) stuck around to answer a few additional questions from the community.

Originally Posted by Blizzard Entertainment

A lot of the answers the devs have to a lot of questions were "the people who would be working on x are already working on y and its about prioritization" Do you think the higher ups at blizz are not giving the hots team the resources it needs to make the big improvements the game needs? If things take too long to do players leave and move on to new games and by time those improvements come they are already invested in a new/different game.
A global truth of development is that you will always have more you want to do than the resources to do it all immediately. It doesn't matter if you're a solo developer working on an indie game or part of a 1,000 developer time. If you want to get anything done, you have to prioritize some items over others. Trying to do everything at once means you're not going to get any of them done.

That's part of the 'sausage making' behind development. It's not pretty, but its how anything gets done. (BlizzTravis)

Most people are armchair developers who have no idea how things work. I hope the Blizz team does not feel bad about all the negativity and hate. You guys are doing a great job with all the content. Once the matchmaking is fixed the rest will fall in line soon. I wish somebody would make a thread about the great things about Hots and puts that on the front page.
Not at all! The simple truth is that almost every post on the AMA and on here come from a place of caring. People care about the game.

But, this is part of the reason why we don't generally like to share the sausage making. (BlizzTravis)

Can you give us some insight into reasoning for QM seeding into your HL MMR? In several people's minds from the community, QM is a completely different game from HL and doesnt correctly teach people how to play the game. With QM MMR seeding into HL we now have people being placed in higher ranks for HL but do not understand the basics of the game. This leads to a poor game experience for those players who are at the correct HL ranking. If QM seeding for HL is going to continue, what are the plans for providing the correct knowledge on how to play the game so we can close that gap?
The knowledge question was answered elsewhere, but I wanted to use your question as a jumping off point to talk about the seeding into ranked as it comes up pretty frequently.

Basically, some knowledge of a player is better than no knowledge of a player when setting their initial seed into a new mode. While the intricacies of Hero League might not be there for someone coming over from Unranked Draft or Quick Match, a lot of other things, such as mechanic ability, do apply.

With that in mind, a highly skilled QM player can be expected to do comparably well in HL up to a certain point. They would not be expected to be able to hold up as well at the highest ranks, but at lower ranks, they can hold their own. That's where the seed and placement caps come in.

The change we're making is to lower the MMR seed cap from Unranked Draft and Quick Match to Gold 5. A good QM player should easily be able to hold their own at Gold 5. From there, the cap on movement during placements means that even the best players coming in for the first time are limited to Plat 5 and need to work their way up from there. (BlizzTravis)

[regarding players of different ranks being matched together]
I want to jump in here to clarify. What you're talking about isn't caused by either MMR or the feeling that some players' MMRs aren't set correctly.

When you're matched with people of different ranks, that's because the matchmaking system has to find a balance between queue time and match quality and, in that case, it failed to make a match quickly enough. When that happens, it expands the search range of viable players in order to get a match started. It doesn't happen frequently and you'll usually see this come up in particular circumstances that don't have a lot of other players to make matches with: GM tier, smaller regions during off hours, etc.

As Joe noted earlier, one of the changes we're making is shifting that balance point so the system will allow longer before it expands the search criteria so it happens even less frequently. (BlizzTravis)

Reddit AMA Highlights
Following yesterday's blog about the near future of the game, the development team also held a reddit AMA on the Heroes subreddit. We have the full answers below, but if you're interested in just the highlights, you'll find them right here:

Third ban has been discussed since last year, aiming at making it a mid-ban. Team is taking recent feedback about making it a first-ban

Incomplete API is working internally and is currently being used for the HGC website. The API team is working on improving matchmaking and ranked at the moment, so API is on backburner for now

A full MMR reset has been considered, but it would be "UGLY"

Reconnect system is an issue, but the engineers are currently working on matchmaking and ranked improvements as those benefit far more players

Hero swaps are currently a lower priority for public games, with potential issues being extended draft times and additional toxicity

Social features will be improved in the future, starting with an improved party finder tool and followed by clans. Low priority compared to current issues though, so it will be a while

Toxicity report validation system coming in the next few weeks

Matchmaking imrpovements are made server-side and are thus independent from regular patches

Loss forgiveness is being implemented and will be released in the next few months

Ranked improvements make most sense with season rolls. Third ban is high on the list for the next one (June)

Performance-based matchmaking is planned to be re-introduced with the next ranked season as well

Current season length is a balance between two extremes

Commendation system is a good idea but not currently in development

Visible MMR is coming and is planned to be part of the performance-based matchmaking updates

Team is looking at expanding rewards for picking "auto-select"

Raynor is getting a rework Soon(TM)

Quick match will have strict role enforcing in the matchmaker implemented in the future, with the current plan to have 1 tank, 1 healer, 1 assassin, and 2 flexible spots

Team League participation is a tought nut to crack, and will likely need the improved social systems coming in the future

Surrender option is not currently on the table

Originally Posted by Blizzard
(Blue Tracker)

We’ve been discussing adding third bans since around the middle of last year. The idea to place the third ban in the mid-ban phase came from feedback from both the community and the pros. The initial requests for the third ban started coming up because there were now enough heroes in the pool that could fill similar roles that a counter-ban in the mid-ban phase was losing effectiveness. Adding an additional ban at that point would bring teeth back to mid-draft bans.

Taking a step back, the core idea is that the mid-ban is a strategic ban based on how the draft is unfolding, while the first ban is primarily a meta ban. At the highest levels of play, some strategy comes into play during the first ban phase, as HGC teams have done significant research into their opponents, but for most players, the first ban gets used to remove whatever hero tends to be on top of the meta at that moment. In higher ranks, it gets a bit more variety as it will sometimes be the hero that is on top of the meta for that battleground, but that’s not the typical situation.

That being said, sentiment shifts over time, and we’re open to revisiting this and adding the third ban as a first-ban instead. The feeling is that doing so would be mainly addressing a more short-term concern, the release of overpowered heroes, where an additional mid-ban is more interesting long-term. We’ve been watching the community response and are interested to see if folks still feel strongly about adding it as a first-ban after seeing the reasoning behind the mid-ban.

Originally Posted by Blizzard
(Blue Tracker)

Releasing a public API has been something the dev team has also wanted for a long time. We have an initial version of this API working internally that is used by our HGC and Heroes Game websites. The problem is that it isn’t complete, and it isn’t setup in a way to support the needs of a public facing API (i.e. reliability).

Unfortunately, the same people who would work on finishing this public API are the same people that are working on features like improving matchmaking and the ranked game mode. Because of that, we simply haven’t been able to justify prioritizing it above those features. As of right now, we don’t have engineers working on this, and until we get through a lot of the player facing improvements (matchmaking, ranked, etc), we wouldn’t prioritize this.

Regarding our philosophy of what we’re ok with having in an API, I would say that we’re ok with having almost everything you can see in your own in-game profile. On the match history side, we’d like to include basically every game stat that we track for a match. Everything you see on the scorescreen, and probably a bunch of stuff that we track but don't show on the score screen. We’ve also ok with even adding “aggregate” stats across the whole player base like hero pick/win rates, talent pick/win rates, etc. Again, this is the philosophy of what we’d like to get in, now it’s just a matter of when we can dedicate resources to it.

Originally Posted by Blizzard
(Blue Tracker)

Just for completeness sake: Did you ever consider a full MMR reset with all the issues and effects coming with that?

We tend to consider everything when looking at solutions and, yes, we’ve considered what an MMR reset would mean. Man…it’s UGLY. The utopian view is that a reset would be a short period of utter chaos where everyone starts out equal and is essentially tossed into a giant thunderdome where the weak are slaughtered by the strong until everyone is sorted properly.

More realistically, it would be an extended period of utter chaos long after placements as those placement games would be almost completely arbitrary. With no starting MMR to use to match players up, it would be entirely luck-of-the-draw for team comps and where you end up after placements would come down to chance more than anything.

From there, the ranks would have to slowly sort themselves out as the GMs who ended up in silver/gold due to being matched repeatedly with teams full of bronze/silver players dominate those games where the bronze players who found themselves in platinum due to being in games filled with masters end up throwing most of their games as they slowly work their way back down the ranks. In the process, the GMs are inflating the win rate of the low rank players they’re playing with and the bronze players are tanking the win rate of the ones they’re playing with making it more difficult for everyone to end up at their deserved rank.

In short, it would be expected to be an awful experience for everyone.

Originally Posted by Blizzard
(Blue Tracker)

In order to have a better system reconnect and replay and spectate, does the game need a "new engine", or is it otherwise impossible to make those systems significantly better? Ideally you'd want to be able to change the netcode to send some kind of "full state" so that the game doesn't have to re-simulate every single command (which is what takes so damn long). Is this assessment even close to correct, and how hard is this to change in the current engine?
There is some validity to what you are saying, but I don’t think “impossible” is the right word.

Heroes of the Storm uses a peer-to-peer networking architecture. This architecture offers a lot of benefits, but also makes certain things more difficult. Unfortunately, reconnect is one of those things. Having said that, it is not impossible to make improvements to the system. We’ve actually improved the system on a couple occasions since the original launch of the game. But we’re absolutely with you guys that the system is far from perfect, and could use more love.

This again comes down to prioritization. The same people who would work on improving the reconnect system are the same engineers working on matchmaking and ranked improvements. After looking at the reconnect stats, we decided that matchmaking and ranked system improvements would benefit far more players right now.

Originally Posted by Blizzard
(Blue Tracker)

Regarding the pause idea: We do have the ability to pause the game which we use for esports scenarios. So far we've decided that this would be too disruptive to use in normal games if a single player had a bad connection/computer.

Originally Posted by Blizzard
(Blue Tracker)

Hero Swaps and it's alternatives

Unlike a lot of the things we’re discussing here today, hero swaps aren’t a clear win for the majority of the community so while it is something we’re investigating, it’s a lower priority item.

To be effective, swaps would need their own phase, extending the time it takes for drafts to complete. They also open the door to additional toxicity and, although the core of the feature is available in custom games, it’s reliant on the players on the teams trusting each other. For it to come to other draft modes, there’s a significant development effort involved to add a lot of validation between players. You wouldn’t want someone grabbing your first-pick treasure without your permission, for example, which you can do with the implementation in custom games.

On top of that, for swaps to be effective, they require significant upfront communication by the players. That’s certainly something we want to encourage, but that also means the feature wouldn’t be used by a lot of players beyond the top end of ranked play.

So, right now, we’d rather focus our development efforts on features that will more clearly be beneficial to all players.

For the alternatives, such as trying out first-come first-served (FCFS) drafting which provides a similar benefit, we can do that relatively quickly. There’s some skepticism about whether FCFS can work outside of a team environment, though. We had the same concerns when we allowed 2s and 3s in team league and were pleasantly surprised by the results. It’s an area where we want to gauge community interest and if the feeling is that players would prefer FCFS over nothing, we’d try it out in Unranked Draft first.

Originally Posted by Blizzard
(Blue Tracker)

Yeah, we agree that our current observer UI is long in the tooth. As you mentioned we’ve wanted to bring stuff like the current in-game party panel into the observer UI. As we’ve gone on, our observer UI has diverged from the normal UI a bit, and it’s part of the reason why you’ve seen some bugs in the observer UI lately. That’s no excuse and we need to fix it, but I just wanted to provide some context.

The current plan is to better unify the in-game UI and the observer UI. We’re going to be using the same party panel UI that appears at the top of an actual game. Once we have that unification, we can start to consider more functionality that would benefit esports viewers.

Originally Posted by Blizzard
(Blue Tracker)

As a followup to Team League, do you have plans about social features like a Clan System, a Party Finder or similar?
Lots of plans. As you’ll likely hear a lot today, it’s a matter of priorities and how we spend our resources. The plan is to start with an updated party finder which significantly improves that system. The major changes would be to decouple the party finder from chat channels, which would significantly expand the pool of available players, and allow players to look for others based on the game mode and role they want to play.

We feel that’s the important first step. From there, we can build upon that with clans, which would be a great addition to the game as well.

But, again, you can see the list of things we’re working on currently and we feel those items are higher priority than the social features right now. So, while we’d love to get to them, and they’re coming, they’re further out.

Originally Posted by Blizzard
(Blue Tracker)

So we definitely want to communicate with you more about what we’re currently working on, and what our view of upcoming priorities are. The blog post and this AMA are some steps in that direction. We're also discussing lots of ideas about how best to communicate with the community going forward.

That being said, here’s some info for you in terms of timing/order of stuff:

New toxicity report validation system: We should be turning this on within the next couple weeks. This will increase the amount of reports we action by a significant amount. We’re going to put out a dedicated post on this soon.

Matchmaking improvements: Since the majority of these are on the server side, we’re going to be rolling these out independently of our normal client patches. Some will come quicker than others. For example, we’re going to try and get the hardening of rules to favor match quality more over queue time in the near term.

Loss Forgiveness / Improved Leaver Punishments: This is deep into implementation and is currently lined up to come out in a patch in the next couple months.

Ranked improvements: Several of these improvements make the most sense to release with a new season roll. So, we’re trying to get some of these changes into the next season roll (~June). 3rd Ban is high on the list.

Performance Based Matchmaking: We’re wrapping up the improvements we discussed in the blog post, and are planning to re-introduce this system also with the next season roll. We may initially introduce this as a purely informational system, and then turn on the actual point adjustments after the community has had time to provide feedback. If we do that, it technically doesn’t need to align exactly with a season roll.

Originally Posted by Blizzard
(Blue Tracker)

Do you plan on changing ranked seasons, so they have the same durations/times as HGC seasons: Two six-month seasons per year? Do you plan on adding a team system, for named teams (in team leagues for example)?
Regarding season length: We've discussed season length quite a bit on the team. We've actually considered everything from once a month to one season for the whole year. We think the current system is a balance between those, but I would say that we're still open to discussion on this topic.

Regarding named teams: We actually had this in Heroes originally! Team league worked this way when it was initially launched. The issue was that problems we currently face with Team League (which I think one of the other guys answered a question on that already), are actually worse with the fixed named teams. The tl;dr is that it's tough for players to align schedules with their teammates. As a result, we saw even less participation in that system than we see with the current system.

Originally Posted by Blizzard
(Blue Tracker)

Do you plan to add any system of rewards for good performance?
We've definitely had conversations on this. While we're not currently working on this right now, we'd love to incorporate a system like you mention into our existing set of "tools" to combat toxicity. While we think a commendation/reward system can be a huge help, there are still some players who aren't motivated by these systems. So we think it is important to have a combination of systems to make sure we can still remove players who simply can't play nicely in the game.

Originally Posted by Blizzard
(Blue Tracker)

My question is, are you still considering at least adding visible MMR alongside the current rank system, and is it a bit more than "we're discussing it internally" which we've been getting since the game was released?
Yep, its coming. Over the years, there’s been a lot of back and forth about whether showing MMR is more valuable than harmful. In the end, we’ve come to feel it’ll be more helpful.

To go a bit more in-depth, it’s good to understand the purpose of both MMR and rank. You touch on this, but I want to use this post to also make sure it’s clear to everyone reading this.

Matchmaking Rating (MMR) is purely a measurement. It’s an indication of your skill as a player which is then used by the matchmaker to put together games. The more accurate MMR, the better the matches that can be made. Gaining, or losing, skill is a slow process that happens over the course of many games, so MMR does not change quickly. It purposefully doesn’t react strongly to short streaks of wins or losses as they’re not necessarily an indication of a skill change so much as a streak of good, or bad, luck. This is where issues come up with showing MMR. Once it’s visible, it draws a lot of attention and gets treated like a reward system. Players tend to focus on figuring out how to make it go up by any means necessary, looking for ways to push it higher as quickly as possible. That’s not a healthy outlook and leads to frustration when it doesn’t happen.

On the other side of the coin, Rank is a reward system. It represents how well you’ve done over the course of a season. If you go on a win streak, your rank spikes accordingly.

The issue we run into is that Rank is currently the only visible indication of skill in the game, so it can’t diverge too much from MMR. When players are put together in a match with players of disparate rank, the assumption is that they are also disparate skill, and that feels bad.

This had led to the need for Rank and MMR to stay relatively close, which is why Personal Rank Adjustment exists. That blunts the ability for rank to be a true reward system. It also means that matchmaking must consider rank, in addition to MMR, when putting together teams. Visible MMR would allow us to get rid of both of those, which we feel is more beneficial than the downsides that are likely to come about with visible MMR.

We’re working out the details currently, but the plan right now is to add it as part of the updates we’re doing for Performance-based Matchmaking, where we’re already working on new ways to provide you with more—and more clear—types of information on how you performed in a game. Joe went into more detail on that here: https://www.reddit.com/r/heroesofthe..._2018/dxb7gm7/

Originally Posted by Blizzard
(Blue Tracker)

What do you think about the option to show the number of players in the queue with a chosen role (assassins, warriors, support, specialists)? There could be a bonus reward for those who choose the least popular role.
Yeah, so we've already got a bonus for playing "Auto-Select" when the matchmaker is getting into trouble (a new hero launches and everyone wants to play that hero). We're looking into potentially expanding that to offer more rewards for under represented roles in QM (e.g. Support).

Showing the percentage of players who have selected particular roles is interesting. I'll take that back to the team and see what they think. Thanks!

Originally Posted by Blizzard
(Blue Tracker)

In terms of new roles, this is something we want to do. Our current design leaning is to keep it to your first 6 (Tank, Bruiser, Healer, Support, Melee & Ranged Assassins). We’ve always felt that the Specialist category is a little weird. In the best cases, a lot of characters like Nazeebo and Zagaras fit nicely into the Assassin categories. That does leave some oddities, such as Lost Vikings potentially fitting into the “Support” category (they do provide a lot of indirect benefit for your team). Curious what your thoughts are on this, and the rest of the communities thoughts, surrounding placing these odd heroes into more defined categories.

In terms of timeline for this: it is absolutely something we want to do. We think it’s correct for the game moving forward. Currently our priority is around improving the matchmaking and ranked experiences though, so this will be on hold for a little while longer.

For Quests: Many years back, we had a design very similar to this (most likely internal only?). We ultimately moved away from this as it encouraged players to farm out matches they had already won: “I need another 10k healing to finish my quest, don’t end the match!”. We also tried some quests such as “Land X Hooks” but that also encouraged weird player behavior. Ultimately, we stuck with a few simple quests of essentially “Play The Game” but with different requirements. We would love to update the quest system in the future and maybe we can explore some ideas here that could help teach players, as you suggest.

For updated data on bosses, scaling, etc. This is something the balance team has internally. I’ll make a note for us to send out the current numbers either here or somewhere else visible to the community. I will say things like Bosses and other mercenary camps rarely change unless we have a specific design or balance reason that we’re trying to address.

Originally Posted by Blizzard
(Blue Tracker)

Has there been a conscious design decision to give recent heroes a lot of tools for their kits (waveclear, mobility, etc) to make them more generalist heroes vs. designing them to excel in very niche situations?
The short answer is yes. For a more detailed explanation:

In the past the design team went through a phase where we wanted to make sure every hero had a really sharp role. Internally we discussed this a lot, but we wanted to make sure that there was a unique gameplay reason to pick every hero at some point. As an example, we wanted there to be a unique decision point of why to pick Tychus over Valla, or vice versa, without players simply choosing whichever character has a higher win rate. This is ultimately what led to Tychus’ updated design that he deals bonus % damage on his base kit. We designed his role to be strong against lots of high health targets. We also did a lot of this on our Healers: Malfurion wasn’t supposed to have burst healing as he was designed as a sustained healer, Uther was intended to be a weak sustained healer but strong with burst, and so on. For the healers, we looked at not just their healing mechanics but everything on their kit.

Ultimately we ended up backing off from this. We found that it made the game feel like there was a lot more hard counters and you could win or lose in draft. We still want to have good design and gameplay reasons for drafting each hero in a game, but we’re letting those be a lot softer.

Originally Posted by Blizzard
(Blue Tracker)

Vision is an interesting part of the game that we don’t really augment too often. We do some bonuses to vision that you mention, and have some heroes (Dehaka) who can also limit enemy vision. Overall, I think it’s a super interesting mechanic that can add fun and strategic depth when designed correctly.

In terms of power level, we typically start internally as a ‘feel’ thing, and then eventually we can use player data to validate those decisions. Many of the talents players are choosing from can offer a lot of sheer power. It’s hard to make a vision talent compelling to choose over 25% more damage, without at the same time making that vision talent feel unfair or unfun to play against. This is typically why we will add secondary bonuses to these abilities or talents. Vision can also be considered situational, so by adding damage as an example, we’re guaranteeing some baseline power on the ability/talent.

In general, I think we want vision abilities to alert the enemy that they have been spotted in some way. As an example, you can visually see Zagara’s creep, so there is likely to be a Creep Tumor near by. For Lunara’s Wisp, this is an interesting one. I think we could alert you that a Wisp has spotted you, but it does lose some of its power as a result. We are working on a Lunara update that has some changes to her Wisp and related talents, so I’m looking forward to seeing how that plays out. We can revisit any of these rules though!

Originally Posted by Blizzard
(Blue Tracker)

Just to touch on this quickly: We absolutely involve a lot of the design team as early into the process as we can. The live/balance designers are paired with a hero designer from the beginning. One thing the balance designers will try to surface early on in the hero design process is if they feel they have tuning knobs for each talent and ability. In the past we might design a talent that simply increases charges from 2->3 on an ability. If this is too strong, we don't have a lot of tuning knobs without adding a kiss/curse mechanic or something else.

Originally Posted by Blizzard
(Blue Tracker)

Is it possible we'll get a second look at older cleave talents, or that modern/incoming cleaves will be toned down in power?
I agree that a lot of those recent examples have very strong AOE. In general, we try and look at the design of the kit and balance of the hero kit overall. Every hero will have some obvious strengths and weaknesses, but are hopefully balanced within the larger overall picture. For the Junkrat example specifically, I agree that his wave clear is insanely strong! Hopefully however his overall power is about in line with what makes sense. We of course have the ability to tune this down in a number of ways including the splash size, and the fallout of the damage (i.e. less damage further from the center).

I will say we will absolutely revisit old heroes and even these newer ones and make adjustments where needed. Nova has never been intended to have strong wave clear, so I’m not sure we will make changes there. It may be possible that we need to tone down some of the newer heroes wave clear, bring some of the older heroes up (Kael’thas in this example), or meet somewhere in the middle.

Originally Posted by Blizzard
(Blue Tracker)

Support Viability: I would say that we want every healer to be viable in at least some situations as a solo healer. Some healers will of course be better at preventing sustained damage, burst damage, or even keeping themselves safe. But overall, yes, ideally there isn’t a healer that you feel like you could never pick without another full-on healer.

Map Update: The map team is currently working on revising a number of our existing maps. The big focuses right now include large updates to Hanamura and Gardens of Terror. We also have some smaller updates planned for a few maps but these are more akin to balance changes. Braxis Holdout, as an example, we’re planning some small changes to address how snowbally that map can feel. We would love to make larger changes to Haunted Mines & Blackheart’s Bay, but those are both further off

Ana: The rework was intending to help address the idea that she couldn’t solo heal because she had no easy way to heal herself back up. I know internally we played with a wide range of values on this, and even had a playtest or two where she could outduel everyone in the game because her self-healing was way too high. Ana’s overall win rate is a little on the low side so we have room to bring her up a little bit. I’m hoping we can accomplish what you’re looking for via tuning though, or potentially some slight mechanic tweaks. I will say we love Ana as a healer because of how much skill there goes into doing her healing well.

Medivh: Overall we consider the rework a success. It is interesting to see how much more popular he is now (which is a great thing!) but it does mean that players who feel he is frustrating to play against will see him more often now. With our rework, we did attempt to reduce some of the frustrating aspects of his kit: There is more downtime between using Portals & Force of Will, which ideally gives the enemy team more options for counterplay. This is an area we could easily explore and try to do more with.

Frustrating Heroes: Chromie and Genji are both being looked at internally. Genji has some small stuff that will be coming out really soon (similar to Tracer). Chromie is something we’re evaluating a lot more internally. We’ve done a number of changes such as reducing the range of her Q & W abilities so she would have to be within enemy vision range (you could see it coming and try to dodge), showing the splat for her W ability, and so on. Honestly, it feels a little bit better internally but we might need to do more to really succeed here. Chromie is further off as a result. I don’t think we view Diablo or Garrosh as that frustrating to play against. The recent change to Garrosh where his Q no longer pulls enemies in has helped a lot. In general, every character is going to have some level of bullshit they can bring, but it’s important that you feel like you have counterplay options and ways to outplay your opponent.

Originally Posted by Blizzard
(Blue Tracker)

For Specialists: Most of them actually tend to have higher win rates, so in terms of that, they're not currently struggling. As part of the pass we're working on to reduce frustrating moments with various heroes, there are a number of Specialists who are on that list. Usually its surrounding when they're split pushing and it feels like the enemy team has to constantly respond to them.

For the role rework, this was covered in another part of the thread. TLDR is we want to do it, but its lower priority then some of the ranked and matchmaking stuff we're currently working on. Definitely dig up that other reply though as there's more detail!

Originally Posted by Blizzard
(Blue Tracker)

Summons: We’re not currently looking at summons as a whole but will likely try and tackle this on a case by case basis. An ability that is really high impact (and frustrating) at lower levels of play but not useful for higher tiers of play is a bit of a red flag for us. That being said, this is kind of the nature of a summoned unit. In some ways, you can think of a summoned unit like an ability with a huge variance in its damage potential, and this largely depends on how the enemy team plays against it. Obviously higher level players can downplay the value of these summoned units much more easily.

Raynor is getting a rework: It’s not the next set of reworks that will be coming out, but we are actively working on it. Overall we wanted to keep the feel and playstyle of Raynor, keeping him simple to play, but we’ve made a number of changes to modernize his base abilities and introduce a lot of new talents. The team is super excited to share more with you guys on this soon (next few months).

Hammer: I think we added some fun new stuff to Hammer’s kit, allowing her to access some of her key defining talents earlier on. We haven’t seen a ton of Hammer play, but she’s also a character that probably shouldn’t be core to the meta. We don’t currently have more plans for Hammer but we will likely revisit her again in the future.

Originally Posted by Blizzard
(Blue Tracker)

Rain of Destruction: We're talking about this internally. We do want to do something with this heroic to make it feel less RNG and more competitive with Horrify.

Zarya: She's in an okay spot right now. The balance team might make some small tuning changes but no immediately plans.

Artanis: Similar to Zarya, no current plans.

MULE: We're leaning closer to removing this from the game as it feels really bad when the enemy team resets your progress. We think this mechanic works decent on Abathur since he really needs those safe forward positions, so decent chance that something like this remains on Abathur.

Originally Posted by Blizzard
(Blue Tracker)

Quick Match has been a hot topic in the community lately. Whats your take on it?
Quick Match is still our most popular game mode in Heroes of the Storm by far. We don’t think the right move is to shunt Quick Match aside, we would rather improve upon it. The problem that we see is that team compositions rarely feel balanced or competitive. In the blog post that we posted yesterday we discussed making a shift away focusing on getting players into matches quickly, and instead to focus more on getting players into better quality matches. That is absolutely applicable to Quickmatch and serves as the plan of action here.

The first improvement we’re going to make is to strictly enforce role compositions for the matchmaker. A team will not be constructed without a balanced team composition on its own. This means that assassins or specialists may potentially have longer queue times, while some tank-capable warriors and healers may have shorter ones.

Originally Posted by Blizzard
(Blue Tracker)

"Teaching the community" is another big topic lately. Do you have thoughts towards that that you can share?
There are some big improvements we can make in the realm of educating our players and preparing them for competitive play. One thing we’re working on currently is a revised Hero Selection system that provides far more detail on things like their playstyle and main mechanics behind different heroes. This is something that is still a little ways out, but it will help players identify weaknesses in their draft composition and potential for synergies and counters.

As we bring the Player-based Matchmaking system back for ranked play we’re considering new ways to contextualize player performance based upon the stats we currently examine. It’s important that we celebrate areas where players have been successful, but even more important to identify opportunities for improvement.

Beyond these things we’re looking for more opportunities to provide actionable feedback to players through the end of match sequence. Right now we’re considering an “XP Missed” stat that tracks missed team opportunities for experience generation. This should help reinforce the importance of laning. There are places here for improvement, and if you have suggestions we’re happy to consider them.

We’ve also been creating additional educational content on places like the Heroes of the Storm esports website for some time now to help expose players to things like pro player insight. Every time a new hero is released now, for instance, we work with an HGC player to create a first impressions build guide that you can find on our HGC website. Here’s the latest one for Fenix, or example: https://esports.heroesofthestorm.com...tips-from-yoda. We’re also starting to do more things like Hero update spotlights to keep all our players better informed of incoming changes to heroes’ balance or playstyle.

Originally Posted by Blizzard
(Blue Tracker)

In our current thinking we believe that it'd require 1 tank-warrior, 1 healer and 1 assassin, so 2 flex picks. Pending testing and the queues not erupting in molten lava, yes. I think it likely that initially this will be the new standard for the vast majority of QM compositions.

The plan then is to follow up on this change by adding more incentives for queuing as roles that are currently underrepresented in the matchmaking queue which will then make this a hard requirement for every team.

Originally Posted by Blizzard
(Blue Tracker)

As of now, Team League seems to have a lot of issues to the point where barely anyone plays the mode. Do you have thoughts towards that?
This is a particularly difficult question to answer. Ultimately the population for this mode is lower than others due in part to it being difficult to organize a team to play regularly. Many of the ranked improvements we’re making will improve Team League without resolving this underlying concern. We believe that Team League needs some of the upcoming major social features, such as clans and group finder, to truly flourish. Since adding these social features would result in a significant update not only to Team League but to many other areas of the game as well, they’re still a ways out in terms of when we believe we can successfully deliver them. More on social features here: https://www.reddit.com/r/heroesofthe..._2018/dxb9duv/

We originally reduced division requirements for Team construction as a means of increasing Team League participation, which had a small effect on the population of the mode. I don’t believe reintroducing harsher requirements will alleviate the issue, but I’ll take it back to the team to discuss at more length. In the interim if there are other suggestions for Team League I’d like to hear them.

Originally Posted by Blizzard
(Blue Tracker)

Are you considering allowing to downvote / remove maps, so I can only play the maps I like?
This is something that is brought up occasionally within the team. At the moment our focus is squarely on improving the matchmaking process, and while some sort of map preference system could be interesting it’s not on our radar in the near-term. We believe there are gameplay improvements that can be made for some of our existing battlegrounds in order to make them more enjoyable to play for the majority of our players, so our strategy is to prioritize making all the battlegrounds we have more fun to play rather than giving players more means to opt out of playing them. We have several battleground updates in the works already; Matt discusses them in more detail here: https://www.reddit.com/r/heroesofthe..._2018/dxbah5a/

Originally Posted by Blizzard
(Blue Tracker)

Are there any plans to improve the bot AI? Currently the bots cannot help win a game if somebody disconnects.
We’ve actually made great strides with our AI tools over the past year. While an AI-controlled player will never be able to fully replicate a human player, we have improvements planned to help shore up some of our weaker AIs and ensure that they perform their roles more effectively in the match experience. This is an ongoing process that happens in parallel to other development.

Originally Posted by Blizzard
(Blue Tracker)

Will you consider a surrender option, especially when team mates are AFK or inactive for a long time?
We don’t plan to include a surrender option to the match experience, and instead are focusing on improving our actioning for AFK or inactive players. We feel that the addition of the surrender option will ultimately yield a net negative social experience for players in the match. It serves as a point of contention during the match where the team cooperation can grind to a halt in the face of deciding whether or not to quit the game.

We do however have plans to include a Loss Forgiveness feature for players who are affected by leavers during a ranked match. I intend to write a blog post sometime in the next two weeks to describe this system in more detail.

Originally Posted by Blizzard
(Blue Tracker)

Are we getting the ability to watch games of our friends live at some point?
The team is very interested in delivering this functionality to players, but the technology that drives our replay system and it’s peer to peer nature does not make this simple to deliver. Compared to other features we are discussing this is pretty low on the priority list.